case update

Case Update: Industrial Court finds retrenchment due to effects of COVID-19/MCO was unfair

Marcus van GeyzelLeave a comment

In this Case Update series, I share summaries of recent Malaysian court decisions to explore the current approach taken by the courts when deciding on employment-related issues. You can find all the posts in the series by clicking here, including case updates on other legal areas by TheMalaysianLawyer co-founder Lee Shih.

The Industrial Court recently decided that the retrenchment of an employee, which the employer said was due to the challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, was an unfair dismissal. This decision shows that, while the courts will uphold genuine retrenchments as an option available to employers to ensure the financial viability and survival of their businesses, employers cannot simply cite the pandemic as an excuse to retrench employees without proper justification.

The award in Joseph Lim Chien Shiuh v. DTTLT Sdn Bhd (Award No. 1052 of 2021) dated 19 May 2021 should serve as a cautionary tale for employers. I expect we will see many more employees successfully challenging terminations carried out in 2020 and 2021 by businesses claiming to have been affected by the various lockdowns or Movement Control Orders (MCOs) and related restrictions.

Continue reading →

Case Update: Restraining Order Extended to Guarantor Company and Sanction of Scheme of Arrangement

Lee ShihLeave a comment

The High Court in the case of Re Sentoria Bina Sdn Bhd (grounds of judgment dated 9 July 2021) dealt with scheme of arrangement issues. First, that a restraining order could extend to the corporate guarantor of the applicant’s company. Second, the case dealt with the principles for sanction of a scheme of arrangement.

Continue reading →

Case Update: Mandatory for Bursa Malaysia to De-List a Wound Up Company

Lee ShihLeave a comment

[Edit: The Federal Court, in its grounds of judgment dated 31 March 2022, has overturned this Court of Appeal decision. Bursa Malaysia does have discretion on the de-listing of a wound-up company.]

The Court of Appeal in Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad v Mohd Afrizan bin Husain (grounds of judgment dated 2 July 2021) ruled that once a winding up order was made against a public listed company, Bursa Malaysia must de-list that company from the stock exchange.

The case dealt with interesting issues between the interplay of a liquidator’s role under the Companies Act and where the liquidated company is also subject to Bursa Malaysia’s Listing Requirement.

The Federal Court has granted leave to appeal against this Court of Appeal decision.

Continue reading →

Case Update: Singapore Court of Appeal Allows Retrospective Lifting of the Riddick Undertaking

The Malaysian LawyerLeave a comment

Wong Li Qi writes a case update on a recent Singapore Court of Appeal decision granting retrospective leave for lifting of the Riddick undertaking.

The Singapore Court of Appeal in Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa [2021] SGCA 63 clarified the legal framework on a Riddick undertaking and discussed the relevant considerations in whether to lift the undertaking. In light of the exceptional circumstances, the Court of Appeal had granted the appellant retrospective leave.

While this decision dealt with other facts, this case update focuses only on the key facts and issues on the Riddick undertaking.

Continue reading →

Case Update: Company Cannot Suspend Its Directors

Lee ShihLeave a comment

The High Court in Dato’ Shun Leong Kwong & Anor v Menang Corporation (M) Bhd & Ors [2021] MLJU 870 (grounds of judgment dated 21 May 2021) dealt with, among others, the issue of whether the company could suspend its directors.  The Court also addressed issues relating to Board meetings and the requisition of the members’ meeting.

Continue reading →

Case Update: Shareholder Oppression Relief Does Not Extend to Trademark Claims

Lee ShihLeave a comment

The High Court in the oppression action of Chuah Seong Keat and 3 others, or otherwise referred to as the Thai Odyssey case, allowed the striking out of certain reliefs from a shareholder oppression action. The Court found that those reliefs were claims under trademarks and domain name and fell outside the oppression relief. You can access the full Grounds of Judgment dated 12 May 2021 and also reported at Chuah Seong Keat & Ors [2021] MLJU 843.
Continue reading →